You claim "For complete strangers, it's one thing; I can decide their opinions are irrelevant and tell them to fuck off. But if it's someone I like/respect, or if it's a common view in a place where I'm otherwise comfortable hanging out, it's difficult to keep listening to"... I doubt that the people you debate with here at the BBS, or the people you screencap and post on FB are people you like/respect

You forgot that one part *immediately after* where I said:

Quote:

But if it's someone I like/respect, or if it's a common view in a place where I'm otherwise comfortable hanging out

I like hanging out here, because it's one of the first forums I really started posting in regularly back in 2008, and I know a lot of the people here on FB and elsewhere. And yet, I've noticed we seem to get a lot of libertarian assholes who think every crime is punishable by death or life imprisonment, or who think that right to property is more important than right to life. I used to just kind of ignore them (in fact, I never posted in politics until a year or so after I started posting here), just because I wanted to avoid ruffling any feathers. The same goes for the FB groups I frequent --- at first I would just hang around and offer my occasional meager comment, but after seeing mountains of stupid people making indefensible/racist/sexist/religiously-bigoted comments, I just get tired of hearing it.

Quote:

but I often stay out of conversations with you and have taken to avoid responding when I disagree, BECAUSE you get incredibly condescending and "I'm right; you're wrong" about it. You complain about other people trying to be superior, but that's in fact the same thing you do.

I feel more that an overwhelming majority of our political discussions are founded on you fundamentally misunderstanding what I'm saying. I can't count the number of times you've left a political comment on something I wrote that seemed to completely miss the point/not get the joke, and I had to explain what I really meant by it -- like one time I posted this political joke about foodservice workers not taking unpaid sick leave because they need the money (and it had the caption, "oh, look, our food is here!"), and you went on this rant about how people can take off sick if they want, when the point was that they don't get paid for taking off sick (and that their wages aren't very high to begin with). I really don't mean to be condescending, but sometimes I just feel like you're missing a really obvious point. Before I learned you were an English teacher, I used to wonder if there was some language barrier that I wasn't considering, that was making my comments harder for you to understand.

Anyway, when discussing issues that are a matter of factual basis, someone is right and someone is wrong. I don't see anything condescending or arrogant about pointing that out. A lot of people I know seem to have this fundamental issue with facts existing, and with knowledge being affirmable; if someone says, "I don't believe in biological science," for instance, and I say, "well, you're wrong, because the only reason I'm alive today is because biological science works and is a legitimate field," would that be condescending? Or should I take care to consider his or her feelings and make sure they don't feel invalidated by the fact that they are wrong?

I mean, if it's a really minor issue, I can understanding feeling overwhelmed if someone's being overly aggressive about it. But when we're discussing factual matters, how is it "condescending" to just state facts?

Quote:

If what you're saying is true - that you don't like talking about politics - then basically your entire goal in getting into these long-winded debates is to prove other people wrong and you right, which is kind of obnoxious and very arrogant.

Well technically, my goal is (as I said):

Quote:

and so I say things and ask questions in a precise, incisive manner --- not to change his/her mind or persuade him/her of my position, but to demonstrate to the world what a fucking nimrod they are, and how baseless their righteous self-confidence is.

Maybe it's just because I live in an IRL environment where, everywhere I go, everyone I meet (with a few very rare exceptions) is in complete opposition with everything I believe about everything --- the population of my neighborhood, my city, and my general area is very anti-science, anti-woman, pro-religion, pro-gun, Republican/libertarian, "the civil war ain't over yet, it's just half time" type of people. And so I've gotten very good at hiding my opinions about things, and I only really bring them up IRL if I feel like I'm being pushed into a corner, or someone is just really not letting it go. But every now and then, I just get this feeling like I am the only person in this entire state that is not a gun-toting, government-hating, science-denying asshole, and so I guess there's this hope deep down that, if I put this idiot in his/her place, then someone will see it and think, "hey, there are other people like me! I'm not crazy!"

01-21-2013

Offspring-Junkie

First: We're not having a discussion about politics, but a discussion about political discussions now, am I right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little_Miss_1565

Aren't you supposed to be freezing to death right now in the cold snap that no one knew about? And let's be real here, one of the two of us has had "customers" and it wasn't me.

"Customers", I get it. Are you girls cheap or expensive?

01-21-2013

Llamas

Quote:

Originally Posted by Static_Martyr

You forgot that one part *immediately after* where I said:

I like hanging out here, because it's one of the first forums I really started posting in regularly back in 2008, and I know a lot of the people here on FB and elsewhere. And yet, I've noticed we seem to get a lot of libertarian assholes who think every crime is punishable by death or life imprisonment, or who think that right to property is more important than right to life. I used to just kind of ignore them (in fact, I never posted in politics until a year or so after I started posting here), just because I wanted to avoid ruffling any feathers. The same goes for the FB groups I frequent --- at first I would just hang around and offer my occasional meager comment, but after seeing mountains of stupid people making indefensible/racist/sexist/religiously-bigoted comments, I just get tired of hearing it.

Fair enough if you really love the BBS and those other places, but the people you're debating with are new members here, or complete strangers in general - not people you've developed respect for through years of posting with. I get tired of reading their shit, too, and sometimes contribute to discussions until I see they're going nowhere and it's not at all a reasonable discussion. Then I move on because I know nothing is going to change due to the impasse.

Quote:

I feel more that an overwhelming majority of our political discussions are founded on you fundamentally misunderstanding what I'm saying. I can't count the number of times you've left a political comment on something I wrote that seemed to completely miss the point/not get the joke, and I had to explain what I really meant by it -- like one time I posted this political joke about foodservice workers not taking unpaid sick leave because they need the money (and it had the caption, "oh, look, our food is here!"), and you went on this rant about how people can take off sick if they want, when the point was that they don't get paid for taking off sick (and that their wages aren't very high to begin with). I really don't mean to be condescending, but sometimes I just feel like you're missing a really obvious point. Before I learned you were an English teacher, I used to wonder if there was some language barrier that I wasn't considering, that was making my comments harder for you to understand.

Wow, this was a very condescending way of trying to prove you're not condescending. The waiter situation was a misunderstanding because, amidst the other posts you'd been making, I inferred that you were upset about an inability to take off work. Considering your response included the fact that many jobs you've had didn't allow you to call in unless you found your own replacement, and you clearly were upset about that, I'd take it that I wasn't wrong - it just perhaps wasn't your original point. This is only one example, though, and not the one that came to mind. There have been plenty of other situations where you've posted things that basically attack anyone with ANY libertarian beliefs or agnostic feelings regarding religion. When you complained about people who are against labeling, you didn't seem to really listen to my side. You basically reposted your same argument over and over again until I just gave up. I understood what your side was, and tried to make concessions on that, but your very firm, "people who don't like labels are idiots" stance was just too much. This plays into how you do attack people with a label - constantly.

Quote:

Anyway, when discussing issues that are a matter of factual basis, someone is right and someone is wrong. I don't see anything condescending or arrogant about pointing that out. A lot of people I know seem to have this fundamental issue with facts existing, and with knowledge being affirmable; if someone says, "I don't believe in biological science," for instance, and I say, "well, you're wrong, because the only reason I'm alive today is because biological science works and is a legitimate field," would that be condescending? Or should I take care to consider his or her feelings and make sure they don't feel invalidated by the fact that they are wrong?

First of all, a lot of the stuff you get into is not factual. A lot of it is, in fact, theoretical and philosophical. Second of all, there are condescending and non-condescending ways to disagree with people - even regarding facts where they're simply wrong. You do seem to opt for the condescending most of the time. Third of all, there is no POINT in arguing with people who say stuff like, "I don't believe in biological science." Fine, they ignore a reality that exists. I know someone who doesn't believe in evolution. So what? She doesn't push it on me or anyone else. If she did, I wouldn't be her friend and I'd remove her from my life. We've had a couple reasonable conversations about it - very respectful, I never once told her she was wrong, but that I disagreed - and we moved on. I also used to have a very close friend (with whom I've grown apart due to distance) who is a Republican. We used to enjoy a calm, reasonable discussion about politics. We disagreed in many ways, but there was never once an instance of, "You're wrong!" being thrown around. I may think he's wrong about stuff, and he may think I am. But we're both hard-working folks who just want to do right and have a good life. He's not a bad person, so why would I want to try to show him that he's a "fucking nimrod"? And if it's not somebody I respect or want to talk to in the first place, then there's zero point in engaging like that.

Quote:

Maybe it's just because I live in an IRL environment where, everywhere I go, everyone I meet (with a few very rare exceptions) is in complete opposition with everything I believe about everything --- the population of my neighborhood, my city, and my general area is very anti-science, anti-woman, pro-religion, pro-gun, Republican/libertarian, "the civil war ain't over yet, it's just half time" type of people. And so I've gotten very good at hiding my opinions about things, and I only really bring them up IRL if I feel like I'm being pushed into a corner, or someone is just really not letting it go. But every now and then, I just get this feeling like I am the only person in this entire state that is not a gun-toting, government-hating, science-denying asshole, and so I guess there's this hope deep down that, if I put this idiot in his/her place, then someone will see it and think, "hey, there are other people like me! I'm not crazy!"

Again, there are so many ways to accomplish this without being condescending. I know other liberals who live in places like Mississippi and Georgia and such... they don't hide their beliefs, but they also don't put other people down or feel like they have to "put this idiot in his/her place". I don't see how you don't realize how condescending that is.

Anyway, I'm sure you will respond with a very long post, which is fine, but I don't know that I care enough about this situation to discuss it more. We shall see. Just know that if I don't respond, it's not that I'm mad or offended or anything. This is just evolving into another tl;dr, like so many others.

01-21-2013

Godxilla

Is this why we have such awful talks about politics? I kind of agree with you, but in the world, people can be such asses that it doesn't matter what the topic is, the convo always sucks. Have you ever talked baseball with a Yankees fan? Hell. Have I ever talked politics with a Yankees fan? Just as bad. The topic doesn't matter: if someone's rude, they are.

01-21-2013

RageAndLov

Quote:

Originally Posted by WebDudette

The only thing I hate more than political arguments is people being wrong about politics.

How can you be wrong about politics, unless you state completely untrue facts about the world? People have their politics because that is what they think is the best way to run a society, there are no 2+2=4 issues, you just say what you think is right. It's not an exact science.

01-21-2013

Godxilla

Quote:

Originally Posted by RageAndLov

How can you be wrong about politics, unless you state completely untrue facts about the world? People have their politics because that is what they think is the best way to run a society, there are no 2+2=4 issues, you just say what you think is right. It's not an exact science.

That's a very mature way of putting it. I like it. Wow. That was kind of fresh and new to me.

01-21-2013

_Lost_

Tim, Llamas isn't wrong. You are just as closed minded and steadfast in your rather, for lack of a better word, extreme opinions as the people you argue with. Perhaps this part of you gets a lot more showing in open forums because they aren't IRL people that can have a drastic effect on your personal well-being. I also feel like part of your reason for being so committed to your side of the argument is because, at least in your experience, the people around you are so extremely opposite. I like to believe that if you were to move to some place a little more neutral, or more liberal leaning, that you might let your guard down and occasionally be willing to hear a different point of view instead of instantly poking holes and searching for weaknesses. Like a guy I knew in high school did when he came out. He was raised in a super conservative Catholic family, so when he came out, he came out so hard that rainbows started shooting out of the dude's ass. A couple of years in the biggest city in the state, several hours away from his family and such, and home skillet is his old self again. Consider it, Tim. We're friends, but dayum.

01-21-2013

Llamas

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Lost_

Tim, Llamas isn't wrong. You are just as closed minded and steadfast in your rather, for lack of a better word, extreme opinions as the people you argue with. Perhaps this part of you gets a lot more showing in open forums because they aren't IRL people that can have a drastic effect on your personal well-being. I also feel like part of your reason for being so committed to your side of the argument is because, at least in your experience, the people around you are so extremely opposite. I like to believe that if you were to move to some place a little more neutral, or more liberal leaning, that you might let your guard down and occasionally be willing to hear a different point of view instead of instantly poking holes and searching for weaknesses. Like a guy I knew in high school did when he came out. He was raised in a super conservative Catholic family, so when he came out, he came out so hard that rainbows started shooting out of the dude's ass. A couple of years in the biggest city in the state, several hours away from his family and such, and home skillet is his old self again. Consider it, Tim. We're friends, but dayum.

This is a good point. Worth considering. It does seem that you, Tim, argue just as hard with someone like me, who agrees with you in a majority of ways, and someone like Moto, who disagrees in almost every fundamental way. It's sad, because again, I *do* agree with you in many ways. It'd be nice to be able to have reasonable discussions that don't become tl;dr diatribes about how apparently stupid I am.

01-21-2013

Static_Martyr

For the record, I try to be as brief as possible when responding, but when you're responding to 2 or 3 (or more) different people, the posts can get quite large. Also, either way I will fall victim to the Three-Pronged Internet Argument Fallacy in some way:

(-) If I don't address your points, then you're right and I'm wrong by default;

(-) If I address all of your points, then I spend too much time on the internet and you're going to ignore the conversation and mock me for it;

(-) If I address some of your points, you're going to argue the ones I didn't respond to and claim that I can't answer them, so you're right and I'm wrong by default.

So with that out of the way:

Quote:

Fair enough if you really love the BBS and those other places, but the people you're debating with are new members here, or complete strangers in general - not people you've developed respect for through years of posting with. I get tired of reading their shit, too, and sometimes contribute to discussions until I see they're going nowhere and it's not at all a reasonable discussion. Then I move on because I know nothing is going to change due to the impasse.

In a way, it's a way of blowing off steam. I listen to other people's beliefs day in and day out without ever getting a chance to speak my own (or defend myself when I'm inadvertently disrespected). So I'm more apt to appreciate the chance to speak my mind when it's offered.

Quote:

Wow, this was a very condescending way of trying to prove you're not condescending.

If I had really wanted to be a condescending prick about it, I could have made a big stink about it when we first had that discussion, or during one of those other conversations, but I didn't because my intent was to clarify my position so that I am properly understood. Usually I feel that I'm quite patient and respectful in backing up and explaining my views to you where I feel you've misunderstood or misrepresented them.

Quote:

When you complained about people who are against labeling, you didn't seem to really listen to my side. You basically reposted your same argument over and over again until I just gave up. I understood what your side was, and tried to make concessions on that, but your very firm, "people who don't like labels are idiots" stance was just too much. This plays into how you do attack people with a label - constantly.

You left out the part where I recanted my use of the word "idiot" because I initially spoke out of irritation. I've never argued that I don't make mistakes or speak rashly.

Quote:

there are condescending and non-condescending ways to disagree with people - even regarding facts where they're simply wrong. You do seem to opt for the condescending most of the time.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

Quote:

Third of all, there is no POINT in arguing with people who say stuff like, "I don't believe in biological science."

Not everyone has the convenience of being able to compartmentalize everyone they disagree with out of their lives. Sometimes, you just have to learn to deal with stupid people. So I really do appreciate the attempts at advice to the effect that I need to just cut myself off from people I don't like, but it's really just not that simple.

Quote:

He's not a bad person, so why would I want to try to show him that he's a "fucking nimrod"? And if it's not somebody I respect or want to talk to in the first place, then there's zero point in engaging like that.

You're equivocating a bit here. I'm talking about conspiracy nuts, science deniers, hardcore secessionist lunatics. The kind that can easily be mistaken for some weird cultish beliefs; people who say, "The Constitution says we can kill government officials if we don't like how they vote," or, "Science is a trick by the illuminati, everything you think is science is actually sorcery done by secret masonic overlords," or, "most robbers are black people because they think they're entitled to reparations from slavery, so they just take whatever they want from whoever."

If there's one thing you do that irritates me, it's how you seem intent on portraying me as an extremist by comparing my interactions with real extremists to your interactions with respectful, well-behaved people. They're not the same thing. It's almost as if you specifically want to view me as an extremist.

Quote:

Anyway, I'm sure you will respond with a very long post, which is fine, but I don't know that I care enough about this situation to discuss it more. We shall see. Just know that if I don't respond, it's not that I'm mad or offended or anything. This is just evolving into another tl;dr, like so many others.

I've never felt obligated to a response from anyone. I put my thoughts here, they are here for anyone to pore over and respond or ignore as they please.

Quote:

How can you be wrong about politics, unless you state completely untrue facts about the world? People have their politics because that is what they think is the best way to run a society, there are no 2+2=4 issues, you just say what you think is right. It's not an exact science.

I'm actually not talking about politics in the traditional sense; I'm talking more about "fringe lunatics" (the type of people who I am constantly told are "just the fringe minority" and "don't exist in any real numbers," yet that I seem to encounter very frequently in my daily travails regardless). The kind of people that, if anyone other than I were talking about them, we would all agree are "nutjobs."

That's one thing that bugs me about people; they sit and make fun of people who say and believe stupid things all the time (on this very forum, at that), but if I take one step forward and say that someone somewhere is actually incorrect, I'm suddenly "condescending" and "elitist?" No, I really don't understand that.

Quote:

Tim, Llamas isn't wrong. You are just as closed minded and steadfast in your rather, for lack of a better word, extreme opinions as the people you argue with.

I disagree. I would never deny that my opinions are strong, but what beliefs do I have that are "extreme," in your view? I'm curious.

01-21-2013

_Lost_

I said "for lack of a better word" because I could not think of a better way to put it, Tim. And, generally speaking, if someone holds what others consider to be 'extreme' views, they aren't likely to see it that way themselves. Don't take offense to my phrasing. I can sense the hairs on the back of your neck bristling as you prepare to defend yourself, which was not my intent.